Re: [PATCH] fix pgd_lock deadlock

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:26:35PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Another thing. You check for in_interrupt(), but what makes sure that
> > the code which takes pgd_lock is never taken with interrupts disabled
> > except during early boot ?
> 
> It's perfectly fine to take pgd_lock with irq disabled, as long as you
> don't pretend to take the page_table_lock too after that. So that's
> not a concern.
> 
> I removed _irqsave from all pgd_lock, and I doubt there's any code
> protected by pgd_lock that runs with irq disabled, but if there is,
> it's still ok and it especially shouldn't have used _irqsave.
> 
> The only real issue here to sort out, is if pgd_lock is ever taken
> from irq or not, and to me it looks like in_interrupt() should trigger
> if it is ever taken from irq, so it won't go unnoticed for long if
> this isn't ok.

I assume you run it with a lockdep enabled kernel as well, right ?

Thanks,

	tglx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/